CFS-WB-CH04

UNIT 2 CHAPTER 4

Philosophical

Proofs of an

Intelligent

Creator

68

Chapter 4 Overview

The term philosophy, from Greek for “love of wisdom”, refers to a reasoned study of the truth of things. We

have grasped the truth when what exists and what we think exists are the same. Philosophers and scientists

alike seek to understand the universe as it really is, or, in other words, to know the truth about the universe.

The great Medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas believed that philosophy could tell us a lot about God. St.

Thomas is famous for using logical reasoning to prove God’s existence: there must be one uncaused being

which creates everything else, and this reality is referred to as “God.” Using St. Thomas’s reasoning, we can

simply look at the world around us and, by using our intellect, conclude that there must be a Creator.

In this chapter you will learn that …

■ Philosophy is the love of wisdom and can be used to come to reasonable knowledge of God.

■ St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated by way of five proofs for God’s existence that there must be one

uncaused, unrestricted being who caused everything else.

■ Contemporary philosopher Bernard Lonergan has developed a new proof for God’s existence that

focuses on the intelligibility of reality: God is the complete set of correct answers to the complete set of

questions.

■ Philosophical proofs for God can tell us what God is — the Creator, the unique uncaused reality existing

through itself, unrestricted in intelligibility and in intelligence — but they are limited in what they can tell us

about who God is.

Bible Basics

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,

and the knowledge of the Holy One is

insight.

— Proverbs 9:10

For what can be known about God is plain to

them, because God has shown it to them. Ever

since the creation of the world his invisible nature,

namely, his eternal power and deity, has

been clearly perceived in the things that have

been made.

— Romans 1:19–20

© Sophia Institute for Teachers

Connections to the Catechism

■ CCC 31–53

■ CCC 154–159

■ CCC 237

■ CCC 274

■ CCC 286

The text of St. Thomas Aquinas’ First and Second

Ways are excerpted from the Project Gutenberg

eBook edition of the Summa Theologica, Part I

(Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition,

translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican

Province (1947).

69

Chapter 4

Aa

VOCABULARY

Philosophy: The study of

ultimate reality and its causes

by human reason alone. From

the Greek word philosophia,

which means “love of wisdom.”

Five Ways: Five arguments

developed by St. Thomas

Aquinas that use human

reason and observation of the

created world to conclude that

God exists. Also called the

“five proofs for the existence

of God.”

The Love of Wisdom

The term philosophy comes from the Greek word philosophia, which

means “love of wisdom,” but is commonly used today to mean “worldview.”

For example, you may have been asked, “What is your philosophy

of life?” That modern meaning is not how we are using the word here.

Instead, we will use its actual meaning: a reasoned study of the truth of

things.

The great Medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas believed that

philosophy could tell us a lot about God. St. Thomas is famous for using

logical reasoning to prove God’s existence: there must be one uncaused

being which created everything else — and this reality is referred

to as God. Using his “Five Ways,” or five proofs for God’s existence, we

can simply look at the world around us and, by using reason, conclude

the existence of the Creator.

Before we delve into the arguments themselves, it would be beneficial

to understand what a philosophical proof is and how it works. To

begin, bear in mind that philosophical proofs function differently than

the scientific method, which relies upon empirical data and experimentation

for proof. Philosophical proofs depend upon logic as well as formulated

premises, which are readily verifiable or proven by a prior argument.

For a philosophical proof to be valid (true), the logic must be

sound, and the premises of the argument must be verifiable in some

way. Philosophical proofs can be challenging to understand, but they

are valid even if we may not fully comprehend them. The same is true of

the scientific method. For example, just because one does not understand

the law of thermodynamics does not mean the law does not exist.

The same is true when it comes to proving God’s existence.

The most basic structure of a philosophical proof has two premises

and a conclusion. We call the first premise the major premise, and

the second the minor premise. A proof ends with a conclusion that

follows logically (in other words, it must be true) from the rational coherence

of the two premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion

must be true. The conclusion can then become a premise to another

proof, and so on.

Armed with this understanding of how a philosophical proof works,

let us now turn specifically to Aquinas’ Five Ways and a more modern

argument for God’s existence.

70 Apologetics I: The Catholic Faith and Science

© Magis Center

To disprove the arguments

Aquinas puts forth in the

Summa Theologiae, one must

either argue one or more of

his premises are false, or find a

flaw in his logic.

St. Thomas Aquinas Confounding Averroes, by Giovanni di Paolo.

Aquinas’ Five Ways

Aquinas follows the above method to go from what is near and verifiable

to our experience to something which is not a self-evident truth,

namely, that God exists. We will consider the first two arguments in

Aquinas’ own words and the others in summary.

The First Way

The first … is the argument from motion.

■ Simple observation: It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in

the world some things are in motion.

■ Major premise A: Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by

another, for nothing can be in motion except as it is in potentiality to

that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch

as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of

something from potentiality to actuality.


Unit 2, Chapter 4: Philosophical Proofs of an Intelligent Creator

71

■ Major Premise B: But nothing can be reduced from potentiality

to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that

which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to

be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

■ Minor premise A: Now it is not possible that the same thing should

be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only

in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously

be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is

therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way

a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move

itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by

another.

St. Thomas’s systemic proofs

have instructed Christians for

centuries.

■ Minor premise B: If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in

motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and

that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then

there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover;

seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are

put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it

is put in motion by the hand.

■ Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put

in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Saints Peter the Martyr and Thomas Aquinas Refute the Heretics, by Andrea Di Bonaiuto.


© Magis Center

Key to understanding Aquinas’ first proof is properly understanding

his terms. By “motion,” Aquinas means not just movement but change.

So, Aquinas’ initial observation is perhaps better understood to our

modern ear as “It is clear that there is change all around us in the world.”

Things move, or change, from one state to another. A ball moves, or

changes, from a state of not moving to rolling down a hill. An object in

its beginning state (before a change) cannot be in its ending state (after

the change) at the same time. Something which is cold (with atoms

not excited) cannot be something hot (with atoms excited) at the same

time.

Furthermore, before a change, an object is said to be in potency

(or potentiality) to its changed state (ending state). After the change,

the object is said to be in act (actualized) to this changed state. So, we

might describe change as a transition from potency to act. Using the

examples above, a ball is potentially rolling down the hill until it is actually

rolling down the hill. A cold object (which has only the potency to be

hot) transitions from its state of potency (coldness) to act (hotness).

Something possible (in potential) can only come to be by something

actual. For example, when you kick a ball, the ball cannot move

on its own unless something in motion strikes it, like your foot. An object

which is in potency to a new changed state must be moved (acted

upon) by something else to transition from potency to act (its new

changed state), because it cannot move itself to what it does not have.

Remember, since the object is not yet in the new changed state, it cannot

give itself what it does not have. Therefore, something else, a mover,

will have to move it to where it cannot go by itself.

This gives rise to the question of whether the mover is itself something

which needs to be moved from potency to act. If so, then it too

would need a mover to bring it from potency to act. This would be

the case for all other movers that need to be moved from potency to

act — all of them would need movers. Can we go back through an infinite

number of movers? No, we cannot, because an infinity of movers can

never be actualized. By definition, infinity stretches on forever. If you

were told that in order to get a million-dollar reward, you have to take an

infinite number of steps, you would say, “Hey, that’s not fair, because an

infinite number of steps is impossible to complete — it can never be actualized.

It simply can’t be done.” Now, if an infinite number of steps can

never be actualized, then we cannot say that an infinite number of steps

were completed to move a particular object from potency to act — the

object would never be moved. It would still be awaiting the infinite number

of steps to be completed (and will always be waiting), because an

Potency: In metaphysics, the

capacity to act or change, or a

possibility a thing can be said

to have.

Act: In metaphysics, the

motion, or change, that

reflects the fulfillment of a

possibility in a thing.

Something

possible (in

potential) can

only come to be

by something

actual.



73

First Mover: The necessary,

uncaused being, or God, who

first set everything in motion.

If there were

no first cause

that put

everything in

motion, nothing

whatsoever

would move.

infinite number of steps is not completable. So, what does this mean?

There must be a First Mover.

What, then, must a first mover be like? It cannot be something that

needs to be moved from potency to act, otherwise it would itself require

a mover. Additionally, the first mover must have the capacity to

move all other objects to act, because it is the source (first) to move all

subsequent changes from potency to act.

The key principle of Aquinas’s argument is underlined and is necessarily

true: “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would

be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover.” What is true of

one thing in motion (change) is true of the collective motion (change)

of the entire universe. If there were no first cause that put everything

in motion, nothing whatsoever would move. There would be no motion

(change) in anything, so there must be an unmoved mover that set everything

else into motion. This First Mover is God. Let us look at the

second proof, which builds upon the first and strengthens it.

The Second Way

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.

■ Simple Observation: In the world of sense [like sight], we find there

is an order of efficient causes.

■ Major premise: There is no case known (neither is it, indeed,

possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself;

for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

■ Minor premise A: Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go

on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the

first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is

the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be

several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the

effect.

■ Minor premise B: Therefore, if there be no first cause among

efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate

cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity,

there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate

effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly

false.

■ Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient

cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

This argument is similar to the first but arrives at its conclusion by a

different route. Whereas the first way is rooted in the observation that


© Magis Center

things are in motion, or change, the second way is concerned about the

cause of that change. In fact, borrowing from the ancient Greek philosopher

Aristotle, Aquinas believed that all things that are actualized (that

is, change from potency to act) have four causes for that change. One

of those causes is the efficient (or agent) cause. An efficient cause

is like an agent that causes other things to happen in some way. For

example, an architect must imagine the house before he draws it. The

idea of the house in the architect’s mind is a cause of the house she

draws on paper. But what caused the thought (idea) of the house in the

first place? That would be the will of the architect who chooses to think

of an idea for a house before drawing it. The architect is thus the efficient

cause of the actual house someone builds, even if she did not

build it herself.

Like the first argument, efficient causes cannot go on infinitely

into the past. There must be a first efficient cause — an eternal first

cause — that did not come to be by anything else, but just is. God is the

name we give to that first efficient cause.

Efficient Cause: In

philosophy, the agent who

brings a thing into being or

initiates a change.

An architect who conceives

and designs a house is the

efficient cause of that house,

even if she does not build it

herself.

Image courtesy Shutterstock.



75

The Third Way

Let us now look at Aquinas’ third proof, which deals with what we might

call the limited life cycle of things. Aquinas calls this way the argument

from possibility and necessity. It is possible for things to exist, and to

not exist. A tree, for example, grows from a planted seed, flourishes for

a time, but eventually dies, decays, and ceases to be. He notes that all

around us are things that come to be and cease to exist. Such beings do

not have to exist, and therefore, are not existence itself. If a being is not

existence itself, it does not exist through itself, but rather exists through

something else — it is caused by something else. If everything in reality

were caused by something else, then the whole of reality itself would

have to be caused by something else. There is, however, by definition,

nothing else outside the whole of reality. Thus, there must be a being in

the whole of reality that does not need a cause of its existence. If there

were no uncaused being in the whole of reality then the whole of reality

would not exist, which is plainly false. Therefore, there must be a being

which is uncaused — which exists through itself because it is existence

This artist depicts Christ’s

blessing of St. Thomas,

between Plato and Aristotle.

Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas, “Doctor Communis”,

between Plato and Aristotle, by Benozzo Gozzoli.


© Magis Center

itself — a necessary being. This necessary being (existence itself) is

something that has always existed with no beginning or end and did not

receive its existence from something else — something that never came

to be because it always is. Without such a being, there would be nothing

at all. We call this necessary being God.

Teleology: The study of ends

or final causes.

The Fourth and Fifth Ways

These first three arguments — the most important for our purposes

here — establish the foundation for the last two. Aquinas constructs

the last two with the first three in mind. We have already considered in

some detail the core aspects of Aquinas’ fourth way in Chapter 2: the

argument from degrees of perfection. His fifth way, on the governance

of the world, shows that the goal-oriented nature of all animate creatures

— what philosophers refer to as teleology — requires an agent

that moves all things intelligently to their proper end. Aquinas calls this

movement of all things to their purpose and perfection the Eternal Law

[the wisdom] of God.

Aquinas’s five proofs together provide a convergence of logical arguments

that help the mind grasp the existence of God. We first begin

with what we can observe with little difficulty. Then from there, we must

ask from where these phenomena (things we observe) come from in

the first place.

God Is the Answer to All Questions

As modern science has expanded beyond the limits of materialism, the

contemporary philosopher Bernard Lonergan has developed a new

proof for God’s existence that focuses on the intelligibility of reality.

When we ask the question, “Why?” we want to know why reality is

this way instead of some other equally possible way. So, for example,

when I ask, “Why did I grow up to be 5 feet 11 inches tall?” I recognize

that I could have been shorter or taller than that, but there must be

some cause to explain why this possibility is real, while the other ones

are not.

What Lonergan realized is that these sorts of questions about

causation can only be ultimately answered by an uncaused reality. Recall

from Aquinas’ third proof that an uncaused reality must be existence itself,

or as St. Thomas says, “existence through itself.” Recall also that

this uncaused reality must be the cause of every caused reality in the

whole of reality. Now if something causes the existence of another reality,

it must also have the explanation of why that other reality is the way

Aquinas’s five

proofs together

provide a

convergence

of logical

arguments

that help the

mind grasp the

existence of

God.



77

it is rather than some other way. Therefore, the cause of something’s

existence is its ultimate explanation. Now in as much as the uncaused

reality (existence itself which exists through itself) is the ultimate cause

of all other realities (which could have been some other way because

they are not existence itself), the uncaused reality must also be the ultimate

explanation for why everything else is the way it is, and not some

other way.

We can restate this as follows: the answer to the question about why

I could have been taller or shorter than I am lies in other realities outside

of me. If those other realities do not exist through themselves, then the

answer to the question about why they exist would lie in still other realities

beyond themselves. As you can see, this chain of questions and

answers will not come to a complete answer (a complete explanation to

the question “Why?”) until we reach an answer that explains itself completely

— that is, an uncaused reality.

The chain of

questions will

not come to

a complete

answer until

we reach an

answer that

explains itself

completely.

The Complete Set of Correct Answers to the

Complete Set of Questions

Recall, that the uncaused reality must be able to provide an ultimate answer

to the question, “Why?” this reality existing through itself (which

has no limitation to its existence) does not simply explain its own existence

but explains the existence of everything else that could possibly

be. It contains within itself the answers to all possible questions — and so

we say that this reality is perfectly intelligible. It is the complete set of

correct answers to the complete set of questions.

We now come to the culmination of Lonergan’s argument. He

proves that there is only one kind of reality that can be the complete

set of correct answers to the complete set of questions — an unrestricted

act of thinking. He shows this through a process of elimination. First,

he considers whether a material thing could contain the complete set

of correct answers to the complete set of questions. Of course, this

cannot be, because any material reality has limits in space, time, dimension,

power, qualities, and so forth. Such realities can only answer a very

small number of questions. Then, he considers collections of material

realities, such as a universe, a hypothetical multiverse, or some other

grouping of multidimensional material realities, but these too have

spatial limits, temporal limits, limits to power and qualities which prevent

them from containing the complete set of correct answers to the

complete set of questions. Since material realities will never be able to

answer every question, Lonergan turns to immaterial realities such as


© Magis Center

Philosopher in Meditation, by Rembrandt van Rijn.

acts of thinking. Be careful not to confuse an act of thinking with a material

brain. Such a material reality could not contain the complete set

of correct answers to the complete set of questions. Rather, he asserts

that the act of thinking is immaterial — like the soul that emerges from

our clinically dead body during a near death experience. This soul-like

immaterial act of thinking would not be like our limited acts of thinking

but would have enormous intellectual capacity — indeed an unrestricted

intellectual capacity to contain the complete set of correct answers to

the complete set of questions.

So what has Lonergan demonstrated? He shows that the uncaused

reality (existence itself which exists through itself) is not only the creator

of the rest of reality, but also an unrestricted immaterial act of thinking

which contains the complete set of correct answers to the complete set

of questions. When we combine Aquinas’ third proof with Lonergan’s

proof, we arrive at the following conclusion: there must exist one uncaused,

unrestricted act of consciousness or thinking which is the ultimate

cause of the existence and intelligibility of everything else that

exists, which we call God.

Scientists, philosophers, and

theologians through the ages

have compared complete

knowledge to knowing the

mind of God.



79

Conclusion

Notice that all these proofs for God’s existence — and the many others

we did not discuss here — only conclude that God exists and that he is

unique, uncaused, unrestrictedly intelligent and a creator. They tell us

what God is — the Creator, the unique uncaused reality existing through

itself, unrestricted in intelligibility and in intelligence — but they are limited

in what they can tell us about who God is. For example, we could

never discover the Father revealed to us by Jesus in the Parable of the

Prodigal Son. Logical proofs and scientific evidence are powerless to

probe the heart of the unrestrictedly intelligent God.

While it is unlikely that one single philosophical proof will be wholly

convincing to a non-believer, many proofs and sets of scientific evidence

taken together do provide intriguing demonstrations of evidence

for God’s existence difficult to deny. Yet there are still many

unanswered questions. Does this God love us, or is He indifferent to us

(as Aristotle and Einstein thought)? Is there a Heaven or a Hell? Are we

a special creation of God? Reason and science cannot give us the answers

to these questions. To know these things, God will have to reveal

Himself to us — and so we will have to seek not only the evidence from

reason and science, but also that of God’s self-revelation — specifically,

the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Ancient philosophers used

reason to arrive at the

existence of God, but were

left with many unanswered

questions about who He is.

The Death of Socrates, by Jacques Louis David.


© Magis Center

Focus and Reflection Questions

1 What does the word philosophy mean?

2 What did St. Thomas Aquinas famously use philosophy to prove?

3 What do philosophical proofs depend on? What is needed for a proof to be true? What is the most

basic structure of a philosophical proof?

4 In Aquinas’ First Way, what does he mean by “motion”? What is his initial observation?

5 How does Aquinas use the concepts of potency and act to prove that God must exist?

6 What is an efficient cause in Aquinas’ Second Way? How does he prove God’s existence using

efficient causality?

7 According to Aquinas’ Third Way, why is God the one necessary being in all existence?

8 In Aquinas’ Fifth Way, what is required by the goal-oriented nature of all animate creatures?

9 Why does Lonergan argue that there must be an uncaused reality that we call God?

10 According to Lonergan, why can’t any material thing or any material realities provide a complete set

of answers to a complete set of questions?

11 What can we conclude by combining Aquinas’ Third Way with Lonergan’s proof?

12 What do the proofs for God studied in this chapter ultimately tell us about God? What are they

unable to tell us?

13 While it is unlikely that any one single philosophical proof will be wholly convincing to a non-believer,

what can they provide when taken together?



81

Straight to the Source

ADDITIONAL READINGS FROM PRIMARY SOURCES

Fides et Ratio 36, an Encyclical Letter of Pope St. John Paul II, September 14, 1998

36. One of the major concerns of classical philosophy was to purify human notions of God of mythological

elements. We know that Greek religion, like most cosmic religions, was polytheistic, even to

the point of divinizing natural things and phenomena. Human attempts to understand the origin of the

gods and hence the origin of the universe find their earliest expression in poetry; and the theogonies

remain the first evidence of this human search. But it was the task of the fathers of philosophy to bring

to light the link between reason and religion. As they broadened their view to include universal principles,

they no longer rested content with the ancient myths, but wanted to provide a rational foundation

for their belief in the divinity. This opened a path which took its rise from ancient traditions but allowed

a development satisfying the demands of universal reason. This development sought to acquire a critical

awareness of what they believed in, and the concept of divinity was the prime beneficiary of this.

Superstitions were recognized for what they were and religion was, at least in part, purified by rational

analysis. It was on this basis that the Fathers of the Church entered into fruitful dialogue with ancient

philosophy, which offered new ways of proclaiming and understanding the God of Jesus Christ.

1 What was a major concern of classical philosophy? Explain.

2 What does Pope St. John Paul II say was the earliest expression of the human search for the divine?

3 How was it that the Fathers of the Church could enter into fruitful dialogue with ancient philosophy?

Fides et Ratio 43–44, an Encyclical Letter of Pope St. John Paul II, September 14, 1998

43. A quite special place in this long development belongs to Saint Thomas, not only because of what

he taught but also because of the dialogue which he undertook with the Arab and Jewish thought of

his time. In an age when Christian thinkers were rediscovering the treasures of ancient philosophy, and

more particularly of Aristotle, Thomas had the great merit of giving pride of place to the harmony which

exists between faith and reason. Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God, he argued;

hence there can be no contradiction between them.

More radically, Thomas recognized that nature, philosophy’s proper concern, could contribute to the

understanding of divine Revelation. Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust

in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfilment, so faith builds upon and perfects reason.

Illumined by faith, reason is set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobedience of

sin and finds the strength required to rise to the knowledge of the Triune God. Although he made much

of the supernatural character of faith, the Angelic Doctor did not overlook the importance of its reasonableness;

indeed he was able to plumb the depths and explain the meaning of this reasonableness. Faith

is in a sense an “exercise of thought”; and human reason is neither annulled nor debased in assenting to

the contents of faith, which are in any case attained by way of free and informed choice.


© Magis Center

This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought

and a model of the right way to do theology. In this connection, I would recall what my Predecessor, the

Servant of God Paul VI, wrote on the occasion of the seventh centenary of the death of the Angelic

Doctor: “Without doubt, Thomas possessed supremely the courage of the truth, a freedom of spirit in

confronting new problems, the intellectual honesty of those who allow Christianity to be contaminated

neither by secular philosophy nor by a prejudiced rejection of it. He passed therefore into the history of

Christian thought as a pioneer of the new path of philosophy and universal culture. The key point and

almost the kernel of the solution which, with all the brilliance of his prophetic intuition, he gave to the

new encounter of faith and reason was a reconciliation between the secularity of the world and the radicality

of the Gospel, thus avoiding the unnatural tendency to negate the world and its values while at the

same time keeping faith with the supreme and inexorable demands of the supernatural order”.

44. Another of the great insights of Saint Thomas was his perception of the role of the Holy Spirit in

the process by which knowledge matures into wisdom. From the first pages of his Summa Theologiae,

Aquinas was keen to show the primacy of the wisdom which is the gift of the Holy Spirit and which opens

the way to a knowledge of divine realities. His theology allows us to understand what is distinctive of

wisdom in its close link with faith and knowledge of the divine. This wisdom comes to know by way of

connaturality; it presupposes faith and eventually formulates its right judgement on the basis of the

truth of faith itself: “The wisdom named among the gifts of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the wisdom

found among the intellectual virtues. This second wisdom is acquired through study, but the first ‘comes

from on high’, as Saint James puts it. This also distinguishes it from faith, since faith accepts divine truth

as it is. But the gift of wisdom enables judgement according to divine truth”.

Yet the priority accorded this wisdom does not lead the Angelic Doctor to overlook the presence of two

other complementary forms of wisdom — philosophical wisdom, which is based upon the capacity of

the intellect, for all its natural limitations, to explore reality, and theological wisdom, which is based upon

Revelation and which explores the contents of faith, entering the very mystery of God.

Profoundly convinced that “whatever its source, truth is of the Holy Spirit” (omne verum a quocumque

dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est) Saint Thomas was impartial in his love of truth. He sought truth wherever

it might be found and gave consummate demonstration of its universality. In him, the Church’s

Magisterium has seen and recognized the passion for truth; and, precisely because it stays consistently

within the horizon of universal, objective and transcendent truth, his thought scales “heights unthinkable

to human intelligence”. Rightly, then, he may be called an “apostle of the truth”. Looking unreservedly

to truth, the realism of Thomas could recognize the objectivity of truth and produce not merely a

philosophy of “what seems to be” but a philosophy of “what is”.

1 Why did Aquinas argue there could be no contradiction between faith and reason?

2 Aquinas believed in the reasonableness of faith. Why do you think it is important that our faith is

reasonable?

3 Why does the Holy Spirit play an important role in the pursuit of knowledge?



83

CFS-WB-CH04

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?